Suspended
At one of my favorite “everything sports news, non-blog” sites, Yahoo Sports, there was a mailbag question to Ross McKeon. Dwayne Bugler asked, “Why doesn’t the NHL suspend a player who injures another with an illegal hit for the same length of time the injured player is sidelined? “
McKeon’s answer was simply: “While this would be the most fair result in terms of punishment fitting the crime, it’s not practical because there’s too much uncertainty with injuries – how long someone will really be out, etc – and can you imagine all the gamesmanship this would invite? ”
This is near and dear to me because Minnesota Wild player Mikko Koivu* was injured by Vancouver Canuck Mattias Ohlund. While Koivu did illegally elbow a player (and was assessed a penalty for it), Ohlund swung his hockey stick at Koivu, cracking a bone in his leg. No one should ever--ever!--hurt one of my favorite players intentionally!
The situation would’ve been fair if Ohlund--or another Canuck player--had leveled Koivu at a later point in the game. It would be even more fair if it were a completely clean hit. That’s what hockey revenge should be about--make your statement, but don’t get in trouble for it. If Ohlund had injured Koivu on a clean hit…well, I still would’ve been sulky about it because it's Mikko Koivu and I have enough trouble with my favorite player Marian Gaborik atttempting to remain uninjured so I don't need my second favorite player injured too, but I would not have been so irate about the situation.
It would be fair for Ohlund to sit out as long as Koivu is out, but McKeon has a point. There’s too much uncertainty. I like the suspension for a number of games, particularly in hockey. (However, it should be actual games played. If a player is suspended for a year, and there’s a lock-out that year, that year shouldn't count towards the suspension--there’s no punishment because everybody sat out. More on that later.)
Suspensions, from my brief research and limited knowledge, seem to be set at the discretion of the Commissioner. I think the suspension should be based on the injury, rather than the crime, if it's not presently. For example, broken bone is ten games, cracked bone is five games, concussion is four games, no injury (but a play worthy of suspension) is three games--something a little more concrete, something more a reminder of what you’ve done to the other team. Sure, the same illegal move could have a ten-game suspension for one guy, and a three game suspension for another, but that’s the point: you better be careful what you do, because you never know what the result will be. Todd Bertuzzi likely didn’t mean to injure Steve Moore as seriously as he did, but nonetheless, he did hurt him seriously--he intentionally made an illegal move, and it turned out worse than he imagined. That decision had more serious consequences than he intended, but nonetheless, they happened. (In this case, I don’t believe Bertuzzi should have to sit out until Moore can play again, so I think the year suspension was a very good one. While his year suspension was mostly a lock-out year, he was also not allowed to play in Europe, which many players did. However, I think he should have had to serve at least a partial suspension during the next season. The league's reasonsing was the 17 games he sat out the year the incident happened, as well has his remorse, and lost salary and endorsements. Yes, he’s remorseful about the incident, but I’d like to see him try to make amends beyond apologies--donating time and money to spinal injury research, for example. Maybe he does. That's neither here nor there.)
Anyway, that's my thoughts on something I don't really understand.
Happy Thanksgiving!
*I love that kid. Sure, he’s a turning into great hockey player, but there is no name in the NHL--and I daresay the world--that’s more fun to say. Mikko Koivu!
McKeon’s answer was simply: “While this would be the most fair result in terms of punishment fitting the crime, it’s not practical because there’s too much uncertainty with injuries – how long someone will really be out, etc – and can you imagine all the gamesmanship this would invite? ”
This is near and dear to me because Minnesota Wild player Mikko Koivu* was injured by Vancouver Canuck Mattias Ohlund. While Koivu did illegally elbow a player (and was assessed a penalty for it), Ohlund swung his hockey stick at Koivu, cracking a bone in his leg. No one should ever--ever!--hurt one of my favorite players intentionally!
The situation would’ve been fair if Ohlund--or another Canuck player--had leveled Koivu at a later point in the game. It would be even more fair if it were a completely clean hit. That’s what hockey revenge should be about--make your statement, but don’t get in trouble for it. If Ohlund had injured Koivu on a clean hit…well, I still would’ve been sulky about it because it's Mikko Koivu and I have enough trouble with my favorite player Marian Gaborik atttempting to remain uninjured so I don't need my second favorite player injured too, but I would not have been so irate about the situation.
It would be fair for Ohlund to sit out as long as Koivu is out, but McKeon has a point. There’s too much uncertainty. I like the suspension for a number of games, particularly in hockey. (However, it should be actual games played. If a player is suspended for a year, and there’s a lock-out that year, that year shouldn't count towards the suspension--there’s no punishment because everybody sat out. More on that later.)
Suspensions, from my brief research and limited knowledge, seem to be set at the discretion of the Commissioner. I think the suspension should be based on the injury, rather than the crime, if it's not presently. For example, broken bone is ten games, cracked bone is five games, concussion is four games, no injury (but a play worthy of suspension) is three games--something a little more concrete, something more a reminder of what you’ve done to the other team. Sure, the same illegal move could have a ten-game suspension for one guy, and a three game suspension for another, but that’s the point: you better be careful what you do, because you never know what the result will be. Todd Bertuzzi likely didn’t mean to injure Steve Moore as seriously as he did, but nonetheless, he did hurt him seriously--he intentionally made an illegal move, and it turned out worse than he imagined. That decision had more serious consequences than he intended, but nonetheless, they happened. (In this case, I don’t believe Bertuzzi should have to sit out until Moore can play again, so I think the year suspension was a very good one. While his year suspension was mostly a lock-out year, he was also not allowed to play in Europe, which many players did. However, I think he should have had to serve at least a partial suspension during the next season. The league's reasonsing was the 17 games he sat out the year the incident happened, as well has his remorse, and lost salary and endorsements. Yes, he’s remorseful about the incident, but I’d like to see him try to make amends beyond apologies--donating time and money to spinal injury research, for example. Maybe he does. That's neither here nor there.)
Anyway, that's my thoughts on something I don't really understand.
Happy Thanksgiving!
*I love that kid. Sure, he’s a turning into great hockey player, but there is no name in the NHL--and I daresay the world--that’s more fun to say. Mikko Koivu!
Labels: G-g-g-girl, I'm probably never going to use that tag again so here's another longer tage I'll never use again, Mikko Koivu, Minnesota Wild, NHL
posted by thisisbeth | 1:10 AM
1 Comments:
I think if you end up going down the type of injury route rather than the intent of the crime route, you paint yourself into the same corner. A concussion often times is the most serious type of injury a player can receive, sometimes its just a day or two off. In the end, the only fair thing to do is never get yourself in such a situation again, but barring that, we're up a creek
Post a Comment
<< Home